hi this is very romantic actress photes
hi this is very romantic actress photes http://lovegroup341.blogspot.com/ *** use this and enjoy each moments -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: The Modernization of Emacs: terminology buffer and keybinding
Giorgos Keramidas wrote: > On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 23:08:02 -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> So much for the "free" in "free software". If you can't actually use >> it without paying money, whether for the software or for some book, it >> isn't really free, is it? > > Please do not confuse the term 'free' in 'free software' with 'gratis'. > > 'Gratis', i.e. 'lacking a monetary price tag' is something *very* > different from the meaning of 'free' in 'free software'. If you were referring to the "free" in "free Mumia Abu Jamal", I would agree with you. I don't think anyone would imagine that this phrase meant that someone was going to get Mumia Abu Jamal gratis. Like it or not, "free software" referring to "free as in beer" is probably the most common interpretation of the phrase for a native English speaker. Admittedly, I do not have a "scientific" survey handy. However, I just asked my wife--who has absolutely no interest in anything related to programming, has never heard of the FSF, Eric Raymond, nor the disagreement between those two camps, nor probably will she ever have an interest--what she thinks I mean when I say "free software". After getting over the "why are you asking such a stupid question" phase, the first thing that jumped to her mind was "free as in beer". You can stamp, growl, swagger, spit, curse, and bluster all you want on this point, but millions of English speakers are going to ignore you anyway. Lucky for most of them, they do not have to suffer the lectures of sociopolitically motivated language mavens trying to "correct" them from the error of mistaking the meaning of a phrase to be the normal meaning of that phrase. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: The Modernization of Emacs: terminology buffer and keybinding
Roedy Green wrote: > On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 18:27:04 -0500, Damien Kick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said : > >> "free as in beer". > > but does not "free beer" nearly always come with a catch or implied > obligation? I had been trying to find a good Nietzsche quote about the role of debt in the relationship of a child to his or her parents but I could not seem to find a good one. I did, however, find what I think to be an interesting secondary source <http://www.eurozine.com/articles/2007-09-20-neilson-en.html>: For Nietzsche, debt was linked to the problem of promising and forgetting. It would be a mistake to underestimate the importance of the etymological play that underlies his association of debts (Schulden) with guilt (Schuld). As is well known, the Second Essay of On the Genealogy of Morals argues that the feeling of guilt, of personal obligation, has its origin in the contractual relationship between creditor and debtor. "It was here", Nietzsche writes, "that one person first measured himself against another". And he continues: Perhaps our word "man" (manas) still expresses something of precisely this feeling of self-satisfaction: man designated himself as the creature that measures values, evaluates and measures, as the "valuating animal as such".[1] How today are we to understand these claims and Nietzsche's extension of them into arguments about the role of debt in the relations between parents and children or between man and the deity? Beer helps to eliminate debt by promoting forgetfulness. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: The Modernization of Emacs: terminology buffer and keybinding
Wildemar Wildenburger wrote:
> Frank Goenninger wrote:
>> On 2007-09-29 01:27:04 +0200, Damien Kick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>>
>>> If you were referring to the "free" in "free Mumia Abu Jamal", I
>>> would agree with you. I don't think anyone would imagine that this
>>> phrase meant that someone was going to get Mumia Abu Jamal gratis.
>>> Like it or not, "free software" referring to "free as in beer" is
>>> probably the most common interpretation of the phrase for a native
>>> English speaker. [...]
>>
>> Fully true for non-native English speakers as well. Just did the "wife
>> test" also - she is a pure software user - and yes, free is "no money,
>> do what you want" and that's it.
I should have used the phrase "fluent English speaker"...
>> I *never* use the term "free" if I don't want to imply "free beer"
>> (which is a Good Thing and as such highly valuated - ask any
>> Bavarian). Using "free" as by FSF or any other lawyer-style 6 pixel
>> font printed phrasing is pure perfidiousness.
>>
> I appearantly missed a lot of that conversation, but what is your point?
> While I agree that the word "free" implies "free of monetary cost" to
> many people societies, that is by no means set in stone [...].
For some odd reason, this reminded me of an old episode of Mork & Mindy:
http://www.salon.com/ent/movies/feature/1999/09/03/robin/";>
What made Mork think eggs could fly? And yet when he tried to release
them from the tyranny of gravity ("Fly, be free!"), flinging them into
the air only to have them land with a soft thwack, it seemed like
nothing so much as a stroke of loopy brilliance.
The term "free eggs" can only sensibly mean one thing, eggs which can be
obtained without an exchange of money. To think of it meaning anything
else--"fly, be free!"--is comedy (or not, depending on one's opinion of
Mork & Mindy). When Free Software Foundationistas try to insist on the
phrase "free software" meaning anything other than the obvious
interpretation of the term it is annoying (or not, depending on one's
opinion of RMS's skills as a wordsmith). I've got this great mental
image of some farcical Free Software Liberation Army running around,
removing hard drives from boxen, and throwing them in the air with the
moral imperative to "fly, be free!"
> But that aside: The word free with respect to the FSF and GPL have a
> perfectly well defined meaning. People may misunderstand that from not
> knowing the definition but that doesnt make it any less well defined.
This thread of conversation also popped into my head when I was waiting
in line at the Starbucks in the building in which I work. I've been
ordering a lot of Americanos lately. I always ask for a small Americano
and the person taking my order always calls out my drink as a "tall".
With respect to Starbucks, calling a beverage which comes in the
shortest cup used in the store a "tall" has a perfectly well defined
meaning. But that doesn't make it any less ridiculous. Of course, it
was mentioned elsewhere in this thread that context is important. And
it is. To use the Starbucks analogy, for someone to criticize Starbucks
because their tall drinks really are actually quite short would be
ignoring the significance of the context of Starbucks' abuse of the
English language. But, again, that doesn't make Starbuck's use of the
word any less ridiculous. However, at least at Starbucks, when I use
the "wrong" word, they don't start lecturing me. They know what I mean
and simply go ahead and translate it to Starbucks newspeak.
> Again, why this discussion?
Hello, Pot? This is the kettle. You are so black.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
